Island reconvicted criminal also aboard rebel hijacked UPFA train

'Innocent till proven guilty' sham rogue defence blasted

The United People's Freedom Alliance's shocking decision to nominate an island reconvicted criminal as a fit and proper person to contest the forthcoming election was revealed last Thursday by UNP heavyweight John Amaratunga, shattering to smithereens the UPFA facade that whilst nominations would be given to those having criminal allegations against them for they had not been proved guilty, the line would be drawn at giving nominations to those who had been.

With regard to the many allegations of corruption and plunder of the national coffers levelled against some of its members, the Rajapaksa rebels' straight-laced stance had been that till such time when a court confirms the truth of the allegations and pronounces guilt, the swing doors of the UPFA salon bar will be open to all comers, however condemned they maybe with credible accusations of the criminal kind.

But last week's revelation confirmed the extent to which the present Rajapaksa-rebel-hijacked-UPFA train would go to embrace corruption without qualm when it accommodated in its nomination list even a serial financial fraudster repeatedly found guilty in Lankan criminal courts and who had compulsorily vacationed in Lankan jails.

It also demonstrated that corruption charges made against its members no longer revolt the sensibilities of its senior members but are accepted almost as a natural facet in the motley makeup of a present day party politician. Isn't this inclination, fast becoming commonplace in the UPFA mindset, to accept every sordid transgression as a mere peccadillo, proved beyond reasonable doubt when the evidence show that UPFA does not stop short of court convictions when it comes to granting nominations to even noted IRCs?

The parliamentary candidate in question had been convicted thrice in 2003, 2004 and 2006 over a case of forgery and two cases of financial fraud. However, the Court of Appeal, it is said, directed that his name be removed from the IRC list in 2012. But, old habits die hard, and the IRC had been included again in the IRC manifest after he was found guilty of financial fraud again. But all this seems to have been a mere trifle to UPFA's nomination board, as something that could easily be dispensed with and dispensation was accordingly granted.

The only concern expressed so far by the UPFA over the inclusion of an IRC in its nomination list is whether such an inclusion would invalidate the entire UPFA candidates' list for that district. But UPFA supporters need have no fears. UPFA candidate Prasanna Ranatunga, himself under a cloud of accusations and facing even arrest, declared that the inclusion of an IRC would not affect the entire list. If at all, it would only apply to that person', he said.

The question is not whether a person who is an island reconvicted criminal is qualified to be elected to parliament or to sit and vote in parliament. That matter is dealt by Articles 89, 90 and 91 of the Constitution and, according to the Articles, his eligibility will depend on the duration of the minimum sentence imposed, the amount of time served out of the sentence and the number of years that have lapsed since the date of conviction.

What matters here is not whether a convict is qualified to sit in parliament but the conviction itself since the UPFA's stated position up to now has been that even a barrage of accusations levelled against a person supported with a substantial and convincing dossier of evidence, will have no bearing when it comes to giving nominations, if those allegations have not been proved in court; and that only a conviction for corruption or for some such related offense will prevent the UPFA from granting nomination,

But as can be seen, even a court conviction, in the UPFA's eye, is no longer a ground that demands disqualification. Not even repeated convictions by a competent criminal court in Lanka can stop the UPFA from going the extra mile to advance the interest and better the fortunes of the convicted corrupt.

Attack as the best form of defence has been the chosen strategy assiduously adopted from the start by the Rajapaksa rebels to ward off the manifold corruption charges levelled against them and declare themselves as eligible suitors to place their grease smeared lips on the nation's hand at the forthcoming general election.

Though still dripping with the mud of credible corruption claims that had indelibly soiled the Rajapaksa regime beyond purification, some had shamelessly stood on political stages with the sin of robbing the people's wealth writ

But as can be seen, even a court conviction, in the UPFA's eye, is no longer a ground that demands disqualification. Not even repeated convictions by a competent criminal court in Lanka can stop the UPFA from going the extra mile to advance the interest and better the fortunes of the convicted corrupt.

large on every aspect of their countenance and yet, have had the impudence to audaciously plead the doctrine of presumption of innocence; and to hold themselves as honourable men of the highest moral rectitude unless otherwise proved in court beyond any reasonable doubt.

But for political parties to entertain notorious crooks, fraudster, embezzlers, rapists, thugs, child molesters, bookies, drug dealers, casino operators, forgers, paedophiles and pimps and other such unsavoury characters and now, even reconvicted criminals in their nomination lists; and offer them as the chosen candidates to fill the limited nomination slots, to present them to the electorate as the people's potential representatives in Parliament destined perhaps to take their seats as honourable members of that august and hallowed House, is a gross affront to the voters' moral sensitivities and an abject denial of their freedom of choice. Elections may be free and fair in Lanka but what is the value of the franchise if it is confined to choosing between the bad, the worse, and the downright ugly?

When UPFA secretary Susil Premajayantha and SLFP Secretary Anura Priyadhashana Yapa signed their party's nomination list last month, didn't they both remember the silent pledge they made to themselves and the expressed oath they swore to the nation four months ago as they signed PAFFREL's March 12th Declaration which laid down eight principles for political parties to adhere as the basic criteria in deciding on the grant of nomination to candidates.

Five of the eight criterion contained in the document were that nominations should only be given to those who were free of abuse and corruption, to those free of anti-social trades, to those who free of abusing authority, to those who were free of abusive financial constraints; and to those were not criminals, let alone reconvicted criminals.

Didn't the two party secretaries take studious note when they solemnly signed the March 12th Declaration at the much publicised and hailed ceremony held at the BMICH, that the all important declaration did not call for a conviction, did not require alleged guilt of bribery and corruption or indulgence in anti-social trades or abusing authority or dealing in abusive financial contracts to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for a political party to be placed under a moral duty to deny granting nomination to any prospective candidate with a questionable track record?.

In the old glory days of the Roman Empire, the standard set for a Caesar was that his wife had not only to be not under any suspicion for any crime at any time but also above suspicion at all times. The Roman legal maxim "Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies" which led to the doctrine of the presumption of innocence where a man was presumed innocent until proved guilty, did not apply to Rome's Caesar. He could not avail himself of that defence available to all his subjects. What was demanded of the Emperor of Rome was far higher. His actions were to be conducted on a moral plain so high that no stone of calumny hurled from below could reach or touch him. If it did his end was nigh. In olden Rome, one could smell a rat a mile away.

This nation does not expect this Rajapaksa rebel gang to meet the same standards of moral rectitude as Rome set for a Caesar and for a Caesar's wife. But is it unreasonable of the Lankan public to have expected from both the UPFA and the SLFP a freshly chosen set of men and women who possessed some sinew of moral fibre, some element of decency and honesty, some notion of justice and equality, some ethical standard of behaviour; men and women who would have so conducted themselves in public affairs in so becoming a manner that would not invite the allegations of fraud and corruption that have visited the members of the tainted Rajapaksa regime in droves?